[ RadSafe ] New Russian Power Reactor

Fri Nov 13 18:01:28 CST 2009

Peter,

Yes it was Ignalina, outside Vilnius. http://www.iae.lt/inpp_en.asp?lang=1&subsub=9  Someone pointed out Belarus across the lake.  

You do seem to know a lot about these reactors.  I believe you are correct about containment although I don't know much about the later generations or the fixes that were made.  I do remember an article (pre-Chernobyl) in Nucleonics Week in which the Russians said they didn't need containments and secondary safety systems as there had been no bad power reactor accidents.

Barbara Reider, CHP

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Bossew <Peter.Bossew at reflex.at>
To: blreider at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: WesVanPelt at verizon.net
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] New Russian Power Reactor

blreider at aol.com writes:
Wes, et al:

Thanks for posting these pics.  I loved the pic of the wall of gauges.  
They indicate the level of insertion of control elements. 

Although not a rector HP, during the course of my career I have been to
many plants of different kinds in various countries, PWR, BWR, HTGR,
graphite core, swimming pool, small research...  I believe these are
graphite block reactors, technology same as Chernobyl as Peter said.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK 
(but there are some inaccuracies in the article, I think. The dangerously
igh pos. void coeff. was valid only for low power. To my knowlege the
BMKs have not been used for mil. Pu production, because the SU had enough
rue Pu prod. reactors. In the RBMK, designed as power reactors, this
ould be very uneconomical. As to safety, the rudimentary containment,
alled confinement, can contain the break of only a few pressure tubes,
ike 10 out of around 1670. Further problematic points are lack of
edundancy and lack of separation of vital components. - I would guess
hat the few RBMKs (11 reactors in 4 locations; the 4 small units in
ilibino are rather harmless I think)  contribute some 3/4 of the
umulated risk of all ca. 400 NPPs; this may have changed after their
efurbishment, however.)

  I was in a similar nuke plant in Lithuania in about 1990.
This is Ignalina, 2 blocks of 1500 MWe, the largest version so far. It
orresponds ca. generation 2, acc. to OPB-82 standards, but with some
mprovements. Block 1 has been closed 2004, block 2 is supposed to close
nd of this year. This was a condition of the Eur. Un. that Lithuania can
oin.
Peter

>  It was not quite so clean looking as this, I think due to ugly foam
that looked like after the fact fire added protection or insulation.  I
didn't see the reactor core area.    Not everyone going into the reactor
I went into was given individual monitoring, but the Russian scientists
working there had TLDs.  

The reason the pond has great fishing is probably because it is not
reserve water but they are releasing their secondary side coolant water
in the pond.  I had heard from the workers at the plant that I visited
that the secondary side water was used to heat the town - indeed I found
it quite warm temperature wise in the hotel!

Would love to see more people's input about pics.

Barbara Reider, CHP

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Bossew <Peter.Bossew at reflex.at>
To: WesVanPelt at verizon.net; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:42 am
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] New Russian Power Reactor

Wes
"fairly new"....   this is a typical RBMK-1000, of which they have 2 of
eneration 2 (=Chernobyl 3+4)(pic. 1) and one of generation 3 in Smolensk.
ll definitively obsolete technology.
he pictures seem to be taken in unit 1 or 2, according to the design,
hich I know from Chernobyl. On picture 28, panel 1T, you can see the
in)famous AZ5 button (the red one under the protective cover)(I think at
east).
n pic. 40 you can see the flow scheme of the primary loop quite well.
ote the four drum steam separators; the red lines (labelled "par na TG")
ead to the turbines. Lower left and right you see the feedwater pumps, of
hich the engine heads are shown in pics. 16 and 17.
 find pic. 39 particularly interesting, this seems to be a relatively new
eature (I haven't seen it so far). The curve on the left side seems to be
he axial power distribution, while the big graph (a layout of the reactor
ore) seems to display enrichment. 
ote also the fuel changing machine, pics. 19 and 23, which allows
efuelling during operation.

eter

"Wes" <WesVanPelt at verizon.net> writes:
Radsafers,
I came across this web site with dozens of pictures of a fairly new
Russian
nuclear power reactor. The author is clearly not highly skilled in nuclear
technology, but has taken some spectacular inside pictures.

http://englishrussia.com/?p=2660 

Can the power reactor types on Radsafe compare and contrast this site with
US and other power reactors? I was impressed with how clean it seems.

Best regards,  Wes
Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP 
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.  

_______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the 
adSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
ttp://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/